I found commentary on Candice Swanepoel talking about how she might lose her contract with the Victoria's Secret Angels and catalogue because she's too thin. Apparently she startled a lot of people by being so tiny.

Putting aside the fashion industry's skewed perspective of 'normal' for a moment. They are so far away from 'normal' that I'm discussing this in their context, and in the context of what I've seen in other models.

Here are some pictures. In the first one, the angle makes her look grotesquely thin and like she has no waist. She looks like she's wearing an invisible corset. However, if you take a look at the second picture, it's not so bad. Her hipbones aren't sticking out (unlike the model to her left) and when you get around to seeing her back in picture #4, her vertebrae aren't distinguishable through her skin. You can't count her ribs. Her kneecaps aren't protruding.

Don't get me wrong, the woman is tiny. But she doesn't look unhealthy. Maybe it's just me? What do you think?

I'd say she is definately thin. Not too skinny, but I can see where people would get that idea. She is a slender woman. Maybe it's her legs. they are not unhealthy, but her thighs look almost a little too thin for my tastes. Which makes the rest of her legs look thin. Unhealthy? No, but she might not meet the standard VSC has for it's models.

Ultimately, it is creative and artistic discussion for VSC to make. If they don't like her look, it's their prerogative to let her go or ask her to shape up.

For my own aesthetics, she is too thin. Though her bones do not show in an unhealthy way, she lacks the feminine curves of hips and thighs I think an adult woman needs for me to find her attractive. Her stomach is very tight, taut even, the same could be said of her butt as well. Her collarbone protrudes more than I'd like to see as well.

However, all three models in the picture series are too thin for me to appreciate. I can't say they're unhealthy, but I don't consider their body type attractive at all. If VSC is looking to employ models with more curves and a softer profile, I would like to applaud such a movement.

In the UK, the sizing of ready-made clothing was defined in 1948, with size 14 (US 12) considered as 'representative of the average woman'. That was at a time when most of the luxury (and fattening) foodstuffs were still on war rations, and it shows that, at least at the time, the fashion industry accepted realistic curvatures, and the 'average' was the healthy ideal, not the post-starvation one.

Half a century later, the same people were trying to guilt-trip us into 'anything above size 0 is fat'. Even Twiggy has curves! And looks fab for her age, I'll add - go check the Marks & Spencer ads for proof.

I wanna state for the record, save for within in the last century really, women with curves have always been the ones that were objectified. All the great nudes were women with curves and heavier set. Its only in the last little bit here that we as a nation have turned our fashion back on those that have a little cushion for the pushing..

Ah, media-world, where women have no waist and huge breasts and men have washboard abs and arms the size of cannonballs.

Anyway, there's a standard for both males and females in the fashion industry (though it varies by country, the US is actually much better than Europe). VS does not subscribe to the standard, preferring models to have more weight than the standard (therefore having more assets with which to push the product), which is what they mean.

22 or above is 'plus sized' in the US, by definition. 12-20 is 'full figured', which is only considered above average in the fashion industry (the actual average for US women is 14). The rough equivalent of 12 is, however, 'plus sized' in Australia. In Europe, 'plus sized' starts at the rough equivalent of 10.

By the way, a lot of companies that sell clothes actually have been upping the size of their clothing without changing the label.

Actually, no. Far from that. In the UK, even by the strictest manufacturers' standards, nothing below 16 (US 14) is considered 'plus sized'. In Europe, 'plus-sized' boutiques generally don't store anything below 50 (the equivalent of US 20).

The UK is not on the European standard, but I suppose I should have specified. As to the continent, remember what is stocked in plus sized stores isn't necessarily exactly the same as the standard. Plus sized stores over here tend to start with XL or so, which is below the standard.

Being a European woman who has been shopping for clothes (towards the upper end of the mainstream chart, to boot) in the UK and Greece, spanning four decades, I think I've formed a good idea of what is considered standard and what is not

The general consensus is that, if you can find it in unspecialised stores, it's not plus-sized. Specialised stores can start as low as XL and its numerical equivalents, but the attitude remains 'if you can still get clothed on the high street, you're not problematically fat.' High-end shops can make a point of stocking nothing above M, but they're considered too finicky anyway

Precisely, and I'd go as far as saying that the particular discrepancy is behind the entire problem with our skewed perceptions about appearance, including the proliferation of body dysmorphia and eating disorders. It all boils down to which side you believe

Ah, I see the problem. I am talking about a standard set by a body (the CEN if I recall). I do not mean standard in the sense of 'normal', but instead in the sense of 'standard weights and measures'.

The clothing industry and the person in the street have rather different opinions about, say, what fat is.

Actually, I think that you will find that the opposite applies. The phenomenon of vanity sizing is well documented. Such a phenomenon can only come about because the clothing industry panders to the opinions of consumers. Given that EN 13402 has yet to be adopted in most countries despite the best endeavours of CEN and that the standards of individual nations (e.g. BS 3666:1982) are widely flouted due to vanity sizing, I would say that the opinions of the person in the street are far more pertinent than those of bodies which, in this particular instance, are not heeded, even by the industry that those standards are intended to regulate.

By the way, a lot of companies that sell clothes actually have been upping the size of their clothing without changing the label.

You mean this?

The standards are not important in terms of the actual sizing of clothes, but rather in that they think sizes which are below the average should qualify for plus sized. It shows that the industry is either out of touch with men and women and their real sizes or believe themselves to have a vested interest in making people believe their body size is wrong.

Okay, so unless Vicky's models are considered plus size, there's not really a need to continue the who-knows-more-about-curvy-women's-sizes penis waving. Take it to PM or make your own thread, please.

@Oniya: I think it was actually considered a byproduct of vanity sizing; smaller women (naturally or unnaturally) were having a hard time finding clothes. I imagine Candice herself probably has a difficult time hunting down clothes off the rack.

I've stopped paying attention to the size tags on clothes. I picked up 3 sundresses last year that fit me perfectly. One is a 6, one an 8 and the other a 10. A friend of mine wears size 16 Petite slacks when her measurements say she should be wearing a Women's 22.

Online shopping is nearly impossible unless the site gives you a comparison chart showing the dimensions for various sizes.